2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 4-22-2009 

# Mick ey Y oung v . C ity of W i ldwo o d P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-2035

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Mickey Y oun g v . C ity of W

i ldwood " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1502. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1502BL D- 2 9 9 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 08- 2035

___________ M I CK E Y YOUN G, A ppel l ant v . CI TY O F W I LDW OO D; J OSEPH FI SHER; DA VI D SPI EGEL;

PAU L A. ZI ELI NSK I ; J OH N D OES

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 05- cv- 03399) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e N oel L . H i l l m an

____________________________________ S u b mi t t e d f

o rP o s s i b l e Di s mi s s a l P u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B) o r S u m m a ry A c tio n P u rs u a n t to T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6 Sept ember25, 2008 B efor e: M C K E E , R E N D E L L A N D SM I T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed A pr i l 22, 2009)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM M i ckeyY oung, pr ocee di ng pr o s e, appea l s t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or dergr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof def endant s . For es s ent i al l yt he r eas ons pr ovi ded byt he2

D i s t r i ctC our ti n i t s M emora ndum O pi ni on, w e w i l l s um m ar i l yaff i r m t he j udgm entof the D istric t C o u rt. On J u l y7 , 2 0 0 5 , Yo u n g , t h r o u g h c o u n s e l , f i l e d a c o mp l a i n tp u r s u a n tt o 4 2 U. S . C. § 1983 agai ns tt he fol l ow i ng defe ndant s : t he C i t yof W i l dw ood; J os eph Fi s her , C hi ef of Pol i ce f ort he C i t yof W i l dw ood Pol i ce D epart m ent( “Pol i ce D epart m ent ”) ; D ani el Spi egel , a l i eut enantfort he Pol i ce D epart m ent ; Paul A Z i el i ns ki , a pol i ce of fi cerfort he D epart m ent ; and otherunknow n and unnamed J ohn D oes . A s t he part i es ar e fa m i l i ar w ith th e f

a c ts u n d e rl y in g Y o u n g ’s c o m p la in t, w e w ill o n ly b ri e f ly re v is it th e m h e re . D ef en d an ts Z iel insk i and S p iege l w ere d ispa tche d to the rea r pa rkin g lot of A lfe’s R es t aur antl ocat ed on N ew J er s eyA venue, W i l dw ood, N ew J er s ey , i n t he ea r l ym or ni ng h o u rs o f S e p tem b e r 2 7 , 2 0 0 3 . F ra n k A lf e , the so n o f

th e o w n e r o f

A lf e ’s R e sta u ra n t, pl ace d a ca l l t o t he Pol i ce D epart m entt o r epor tan i ndi vi dual at t empt i ng t o bur gl ar i ze a w h ite In f in iti a u to m o b ile th a t w a s p a rk e d in th e lo t b e h in d th e re sta u ra n t. A c c o rd in g to O ff icer Z iel insk i, af

ter rece iving the c all fro m the d ispa tche r, h e d rov e to A lfe’s R es t aur antw her e he w as m etout s i de byFr ank A l fe – a n i ndi vi dual w hos e i dent i t yw as know n byt he off

i cer s of the W i l dw ood Pol i ce D epart m ent . A tt hatt i m e, Fr ank A l fe i nfor m ed O ffi cerZ i el i ns ki t hata bl ack mal e w ear i ng a w hi t e s hi r tand w hi t e hea dband or ny l on s kul l cap ha d been obs erved tr y i ng t o br eak i nt o hi s m ot her ’ s car . O ffi cerZ i el i ns ki al s o s t at ed thatA l fe t ol d hi m t hatt he off i cerhad j us tdr i ven pas tt he s us pect . O ffi cer Z i el i ns ki pr om pt l ygotback i nt o hi s carand r adi oed thi s i nform at i on t o O ffi cerSpi egel3

w h o w a s a lso re sp o n d in g to th e d isp a tch e r’s c a ll. O ffi cerSpi egel t es t i fi ed thathe s aw Y oung on a nea rbycornerand, gi ven that Y o u n g f it th e d e s c ri p tio n o f

th e s u s p e c t, h e s to p p e d Y o u n g a n d a s k e d h im h is n a m e . Y oung di d notpr ovi de hi s name nordi d he r es pond i n anym annerw hen O ffi cerSpi egel i nfor m ed hi m aboutt he r epor t ed att empt ed bur gl ary . O ffi cerZ i el i ns ki , w ho byt hen arr i ved att he s potw her e O ffi cerSpi egel and Y oung w er e s t andi ng, appr oache d Y oung and al s o as ked hi m hi s name. T he def endantO ffi cer s s t at ed that , aft err efus i ng s ever al r eques t s t o furni s h hi s name, Y oung fi nal l yr es ponded thathi s name w as “M i ckey M ous e. ” The defe ndantO ffi cer s al s o s t at ed thatatt hi s poi ntY oung w as handcuf fed, pl ace d i n t he bac ks eatof a pol i ce c ar , and dr i ven appr oxi m at el y500 fee tt o t he parki ng l otbehi nd A l fe’ s R es t aur antw her e Fr ank A l fe i dent i fi ed hi m as t he man he s aw att em p ti n g to b rea k into h is m o ther’s c ar. Y oung’ s ver s i on of the eve nt s l eadi ng up t o hi s arr es tdi ffe rfr om t hatof the defe ndantO ffi cer s and Fr ank A l fe. A ccor di ng t o Y oung, he tr avel ed t o W i l dw ood, N ew J er s ey , on Sept ember 26, 2003, atar ound 10: 00 p. m . and had one ort w o al cohol i c dr i nks att he S po rt sm en B ar. A ft er an ho ur or tw o, he leftt he S po rt sm en B ar and v i si t ed at l east t w o ort hr ee otherbar s w her e he ha d addi t i onal dr i nks . A tar ound 3: 15 a. m . , Y oung test ifi ed that h e lef

t th e b ar a n d w as w alkin g thro u g h the p ark ing lot be h ind A lfe’s R es t aur antw hen he w as appr oache d byFr ank A l fe, w ho i nqui r ed as t o w hetherY oung had anydrugs . A ft eri nfor m i ng A l fe thathe di d nothave a ny t hi ng, Y oung s t at ed thathe4

c o n tin u e d w a lk in g th ro u g h th e p a rk in g lo t to w a rd th e S p o rt s m e n B a r t o re tr ie v e h is c a r. It is a t th is p o in t th a t Y o u n g w a s a p p ro a c h e d b yO f f ic e r S p ie g e l w h o a s k e d h im h is n a m e . Y o u n g tes tifie d th a t h e d id n o t re sp o n d to O f f ice r S p ieg e l’s re q u e sts th a t h e p ro v id e h is name. A ft erO ffi cerZ i el i ns ki arr i ved and the def endantO ffi cer s as ked Y oung t hr ee or f o u r t im e s f

o r h is n a m e , Y o u n g s ta te d th a t h e e v e n tu a lly to ld th e m h is p ro p e r n a m e . T ho ug h Y ou ng did not s pecifi cal l yrecal l w hat he st at ed in r eplyt o the O ffi cers ’ s ta te m e n t a b o u t a b u rg la ry in th e a re a , h e s ta te d th a t h e p ro b a b ly sa id “ I d id n ’t d o it, I di dn’ tbr eak i nt o anycar . ” A tno t i m e di d Y oung i nfor m t he off i cer s of A l fe’ s pr opos ed drug t r ans act i on. W hi l e Y oung t es t i fi ed i n a depos i t i on t hathe w as t hen t aken t o t he W i l dw ood Pol i ce St at i on, he t es t i fi ed dur i ng an ea r l i ercour tpr ocee di ng t hatt heyw ent back t o t he r es t aur antpar ki ng l otbefor e goi ng t o t he pol i ce s t at i on. Y oung w as char ged w i t h at t empt ed bur gl aryand w as eventual l yt aken t o t he pol i ce stat ion w h ere a se t of

fin g erp ri n ts w ere o b tai n ed . C o n tr aryto O ff icer Z iel insk i’ s s t at ement , Y oung deni ed thathe keptpul l i ng hi s fi nger s aw ays o t hatt he off i cercoul d not geta cl earpr i ntand ca us i ng t he off i cert o us e fourpr i ntcar ds befor e a c l ears etw as o b tain e d . W h e n q u e stio n e d a s to w h e th e r O f f ice r Z ielin sk i to ld h im th a t h is re f u sa l to s i gn t he fi ngerpr i ntcar d w oul d r es ul ti n an addi t i onal char ge of obs t ruct i on of j us t i ce, Y oung r es ponded that“maybe he di d, m aybe he di dn’ t . ” Shor t l yt her eaf t er , Y oung w as t aken t o t he C ape M ayC ount yJ ai l and w as r el eas ed af t erpos t i ng 10% of hi s $25, 000 bai l . T he C ape M ayC ount yPr os ecut or ’ s O ffi ce s ubs equent l ydow ngr aded the cha r ge of5

at t empt ed bur gl aryt o a cha r ge of di s or der l yconduct . Fol l ow i ng a tr i al i n t he W i l dw ood M uni ci pal C our ton February4, 2004, Y oung w as found notgui l t yof di s or der l yconduct butgui l t yof the obs t ruct i on of j us t i ce c har ge. I n a s um m aryor deri s s ued on J ul y12, 2004, t he N ew J er s eySuper i orC our tacqui t t ed Y oung of the obs t ruct i on of j us t i ce char ge. A s not ed pr evi ous l y , Y oung fi l ed the under l y i ng ci vi l r i ght s act i on i n J ul yof the f o llo w in g y e a r a n d d e f

e n d a n ts u lti m a telyso u g h t to h a v e su m m a ryju d g m e n t en ter e d in t hei rfavor . A tt hi s poi nti n t he pr ocee di ngs , t he onl ycl ai m s bei ng pur s ued byY oung w e re h is c laim s th a t L ieu ten a n t S p ieg e l an d O f f ice r Z ielin sk i v io late d h is F o u rth A m endment r i ght s byarr es t i ng hi m on char ges of att empt ed bur gl aryand obs t ruct i on of j us t i ce w i t houtpr obabl e ca us e. See Y oung’ s B r i ef i n O ppos i t i on t o D efe ndant s ’ M ot i on fo r S u m m aryJu d g m en t at3 (“[ T ]he su m m aryjud g m en t r ec o rd n arro w ’s P lai n ti ff ’s cons t i tut i onal pr obabl e ca us e t o arr es tcl ai m t o D efe ndant s Paul A . Z i el i ns ki and D ani el Spi egel . Pl ai nt i ff’ s oppos i t i on t o t he s um m aryj udgm entappl i cat i on s hal l t her efor e foc us on hi s arr es tbyZ i el i ns ki and Spi egel forat t empt ed ca rbur gl aryand obs t ruct i on of ju stic e .”). W ith re sp e c t to th e se iss u e s, th e D istric t C o u rt d e ter m in e d th a t d e f e n d a n ts Spi egel and Zi el i ns ki di d notvi ol at e Y oung’ s Four t h A m endmentr i ght s i ns ofaras t he fac t s and ci r cumst ance s know n byt he off i cer s att he t i m e of hi s arr es tes t abl i s hed the exi s t ence of pr obabl e ca us e t o arr es tY oung fort he cr i m es of att empt ed bur gl aryand obs t ruct i on of j us t i ce. W e agr ee.6

T ypi cal l y , “the ques t i on of pr obabl e ca us e i n a s ect i on 1983 damage s ui ti s an is s u e f o r t h e ju ry.” M o n tg o m e ry v . D e S im o n e , 1 5 9 F .3 d 1 2 0 , 1 2 4 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 8 ). H ow ever , a D i s t r i ctC our tm ayconcl ude thatpr obabl e ca us e exi s t s as a mat t erof l aw and gr ants um m aryj udgm enti f the evi dence , w hen vi ew ed i n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o t he p lain tiff , w o u ld n o t re a so n a b lysu p p o rt a c o n tra ryf a c tu a l f in d in g . S h e rw o o d v . M u lv ih ill , 11 3 F . 3d 39 6, 40 1 (3d C i r. 19 97 ). A dd i t i on al l y , “i ti s i rr el evan tt o the probab l e cause anal y s i s w hatcr i m e a s us pecti s eventual l ychar ged w i t h . . . orw hethera per s on i s l at er acqui t t ed of the cr i m e forw hi ch s he orhe w as arr es t ed. ” W r i ghtv. C i t yof Phi l adel phi a, 409 F. 3d 595, 602 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons and quot at i ons om i t t ed) . O n t he rec o rd p rese n ted, w e c an fin d n o fa u ltw ith the D istri ct C o u rt ’s co n clus ion that O ff icers Spi egel and Zi el i ns ki had pr obabl e ca us e t o arr es tY oung fort he cr i m e of a t t empt ed b u rglary . S ee N . J. S . A . 2 C :18 -2(a ) an d 2 C :5-1 (a). A s th is C o u rt h a s p re v io u slyd e ter m in e d , “[ p ]o lice h a v e p ro b a b le c a u se to a rre st if t he ci r cumst ance s ar e s uffi ci entt o caus e a prudentper s on t o bel i eve thata cr i m e has been comm i t t ed and the per s on t o be arr es t ed comm i t t ed i t . Pr obabl e ca us e i s det erm i ned by t he t ot al i t yof the ci r cumst ance s . W e mustas s es s t he know l edge a nd i nfor m at i on w hi ch t he off i cer s pos s es s ed att he t i m e of a r r es t , coupl ed w i t h t he fa ctual occurr ence s i m m edi at el ypr eci pi t at i ng t he arr es ti n det erm i ni ng i f pr obabl e ca us e exi s t ed. ” U ni t ed St at es v. St ubbs , 281 F. 3d 109, 122 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks and ci t at i ons o mi t t e d ) . Gi v e n t h e f

a c t s a n d c i r c u ms t a n c e s k n o wn b yt h e d e f e n d a n tOf

f i c e r s a tt h e t i me7

of Y oung’ s arr es tas s etfor t h byt he D i s t r i ctC our t , es peci al l yi n i t s M emora ndum O pi ni on atpages 12 t hr ough 16 ( w hi ch w e nee d notr epea tatl ength her e) , t her e ca n be l i t t l e doubtt hatt he ci r cumst ance s w er e s uffi ci entt o caus e a prudentper s on t o bel i eve that an att empt ed bur gl aryhad bee n comm i t t ed and thatY oung w as i nvol ved. Y oung fi tt he des cr i pt i on of the s us pectpr ovi ded byan ey e w i t nes s , w as pos i t i vel yi dent i fi ed byt he w i t nes s att he s cene , w as l ocat ed byt he pol i ce a ppr oxi m at el y500 fee tfr om t he parki ng l ots hor t l yaft ert heyr ece i ved a c al l aboutan att empt ed bur gl aryi n t hats ame l ot , and r emai ned uncoope r at i ve w i t h t he off i cer s w ho w er e conduc t i ng a val i d i nves t i gat or ys t op. Y oung’ s s ubs equental l egat i on t hatA l fe, w ho w as a know n drug us er , pr opos ed a drug t r ans act i on i n t he parki ng l otdoes l i t t l e t o defe ata pr obabl e ca us e det erm i nat i on cons i der i ng Y oung’ s fai l ur e t o br i ng t hi s al l egat i on t o t he off i cer s ’ at t ent i on dur i ng t he o n -sc e n e in v e stig a tio n o r a t th e tim e d u rin g h is a rre st, a n d g iv e n th e f a c t th a t h e f

a iled to pr ovi de anyevi dence t hatt he off i cer s had anyr eas on t o bel i eve thatFr ank A l fe w as u n d e rt h e i n f

l u e n c e o f d ru g s a tt h e t i me Al f

e c a l l e d t o r e p o r tt h e i n c i d e n to ra ta n yt i me dur i ng t he ens ui ng i nves t i gat i on. See Schoonej ongen v. C ur t i s s - W r i ghtC orp. , 143 F. 3d 120, 130 ( 3d C i r . 1998) , quot i ng A nder s on v. L i ber t yL obby , I nc. , 477 U . S. 242, 256- 57 (1 9 8 6 ) (n o n m o v in g p a rtym u st “ p re se n t af f irm a tiv e e v id e n c e in o rd e r to d e f e a t a p ro p e rly su p p o rt ed m o ti o n fo r sum m aryjud g m en t”). Y o u n g ’s c h a llen g e to th e D istric t C o u rt’s p ro b a b le c a u se d e ter m in a tio n w ith r es pectt o t he cha r ge of obs t ruct i on of j us t i ce unde rN . J . S. A . 2C : 29- 1( a) far es no bet t er8

and ca n be di s pos ed of w i t h l i t t l e di s cus s i on. A s t he D i s t r i ctC our tpr oper l yconcl uded, Y o u n g f a iled to c o n tes t th e o f

f ice rs’ f a c tu a l as se rtio n s th a t itto o k f o u r a ttem p ts to o b tain a cl ears etof pr i nt s fr om hi m beca us e of hi s unw i l l i ngnes s t o as s i s tw i t h t he pr oces s and b e c a u se o f

h is d e lib e ra te a c tio n s in sw ip in g a n d sm e a rin g h is f in g e rs o n th e c a rd so th a t a cl earpr i ntcoul d notbe t aken. T he D i s t r i ctC our tt hus comm i t t ed no err ori n concl udi ng th a t Y o u n g ’s p u rp o se f

u l b e h a v io r in o b stru c tin g O f f ice r Z ielin sk i’s a ttem p ts to fi ngerpr i nthi m es t abl i s hed pr obabl e ca us e fort he obs t ruct i on of j us t i ce c har ge. G i ven the for egoi ng, w e agr ee w i t h t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s concl us i on t hat , undert he ci r cumst ance s pr es ent ed, no r eas onabl e j ur ycoul d fi nd t hatO ffi cer s Spi egel and Zi el i ns ki l acke d pr obabl e ca us e t o arr es tY oung forat t empt ed bur gl aryand t o s ubs equent l ychar ge h im w ith o b stru c tio n o f ju stic e . T h e d e f

e n d a n t O f

f ice rs w e re th e re f

o re e n tit led to s um m aryj udgm ent . A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l s um m ar i l yaff i r m t he j udgm entof the D i s t r i ct C o u rt a s n o s u b s ta n tia l q u e s tio n is p re s e n te d b yth is a p p e a l. S e e T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 and I . O . P. 10. 6. A ppel l ant ’ s m ot i on fort he appoi nt m entof couns el i s deni ed. T abr on v. G ra c e , 6 F .3 d 1 4 7 , 1 5 5 -5 8 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 3 ).